Post by: Jeliwan on March 08, 2015, 07:39:46 AM
Post by: jroa on March 08, 2015, 11:55:06 AM
Post by: Jeliwan on March 08, 2015, 02:49:11 PM
The idea of a FE has my sympathy, donno why. But is there any evidence?
Just the Conspiracy thing I can't really swallow. Isn't that very improbable?
Post by: Thork on March 08, 2015, 07:36:52 PM
We do have a wiki that you are free to browse and may be a good starting point for you to form questions of your own.
Post by: Ghost of V on March 08, 2015, 07:47:47 PM
actually...know....it's FE General, not FE Q&A.
The idea of a FE has my sympathy, donno why. But is there any evidence?
Just the Conspiracy thing I can't really swallow. Isn't that very improbable?
We're not your personal slaves. Read the FAQs and post any questions you have. We will be happy to answer them.
Post by: Jeliwan on March 09, 2015, 05:39:54 AM
Is this concrete enough?
PS Sorry when I sounded arrogant or whatever. wasn't meant so.
Post by: Ghost of V on March 09, 2015, 04:57:17 PM
I read the Wiki and browsed the forum a little, so I know the basic ideas. But is there any evidence to support them?
Is this concrete enough?
PS Sorry when I sounded arrogant or whatever. wasn't meant so.
Basic trig shows us that the Sun is about 3000 miles away.
Post by: Jeliwan on March 09, 2015, 08:37:30 PM
I read the Wiki and browsed the forum a little, so I know the basic ideas. But is there any evidence to support them?
Is this concrete enough?
PS Sorry when I sounded arrogant or whatever. wasn't meant so.
Basic trig shows us that the Sun is about 3000 miles away.
And how?
Post by: Ghost of V on March 09, 2015, 10:38:34 PM
And how?
Here's a repersentation of the Sun on our flat Earth model.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/4/40/Flatrth.png/300px-Flatrth.png)
With trig, we get:
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/f4/Flateqn.png/300px-Flateqn.png)
Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles. We also find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively.
This is solid math that supports flat Earth.
As for other evidence, simply look outside.
Post by: markjo on March 10, 2015, 03:38:42 AM
Basic trig shows us that the Sun is about 3000 miles away.
With trig, we get:Since when is 3000 = 2000? ???
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/f4/Flateqn.png/300px-Flateqn.png)
Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles.
This is solid math that supports flat Earth.I think that we have different definitions of "solid math".
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 10, 2015, 07:13:30 AM
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 10, 2015, 08:48:43 AM
Since when is 3000 = 2000? ???Clearly
I'm not sure why you'd expect anything else. I can only guess that you've mistaken "about 3000 miles away" for "3000 miles above the Earth".
Post by: markjo on March 10, 2015, 12:25:18 PM
I have alwayd maintained that the sun is not at a constant height in FET, explaining the hotter southern summers and analemma of the sun. If some experiments come up with slightly different values, that may be the reasonThe problem is that basic trig gives different heights for different locations on the same day.
FET maintains that the sun is 3000 miles high. Vauxy's scenario clearly contradicts that assertion.Since when is 3000 = 2000? ???Clearly, since in Vauxy's scenario
.
I'm not sure why you'd expect anything else. I can only guess that you've mistaken "about 3000 miles away" for "3000 miles above the Earth".
Post by: xasop on March 10, 2015, 02:06:37 PM
FET maintains that the sun is 3000 miles high. Vauxy's scenario clearly contradicts that assertion.
This is the Flat Earth Society, not a Round Earth stronghold. Unlike the mainstream, we encourage people to challenge existing ideas and suggest new ones; Vauxy has been consistent with himself, which is all that matters for his point to be coherent.
Post by: Tau on March 10, 2015, 04:54:03 PM
I like the idea that earth is flat! But I'm afraid, she is rather round. So come on, convince me!
So presumptuous. I'm happy to work with you, but I'd rather go the other way. Name the person who proved the Earth is round, operating under the assumption that NASA and associated organization are exaggerating at best (we can get to the conspiracy later). Also note that circumnavigation is possible on a flat Earth.
Post by: markjo on March 10, 2015, 05:04:14 PM
??? I'm not sure what you're getting at.FET maintains that the sun is 3000 miles high. Vauxy's scenario clearly contradicts that assertion.
This is the Flat Earth Society, not a Round Earth stronghold.
Unlike the mainstream, we encourage people to challenge existing ideas and suggest new ones; Vauxy has been consistent with himself, which is all that matters for his point to be coherent.What does consistency have to do with coherency?
Post by: Ghost of V on March 10, 2015, 05:24:02 PM
??? I'm not sure what you're getting at.FET maintains that the sun is 3000 miles high. Vauxy's scenario clearly contradicts that assertion.
This is the Flat Earth Society, not a Round Earth stronghold.Unlike the mainstream, we encourage people to challenge existing ideas and suggest new ones; Vauxy has been consistent with himself, which is all that matters for his point to be coherent.What does consistency have to do with coherency?
The equation is completely in line with FET. Even if it is somewhat inconsistent, it's clear in its implications. The sun is about 2000-3900 miles away, not 92,960,000 miles like RET would suggest. The discrepancy comes from the fact that the Sun is not always at the same altitude, which is probably caused by the volatile nature of the whirlpools.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 10, 2015, 06:29:14 PM
What does consistency have to do with coherency?When your sole argument for incoherence is the alleged inconsistency, the answer to your question becomes "everything"; and that's entirely by your own design.
Allow me to remind you of your argument:
Since when is 3000 = 2000? ???
Post by: markjo on March 10, 2015, 08:30:16 PM
You might have a point if I had brought up coherence. I didn't, Parsifal did.What does consistency have to do with coherency?When your sole argument for incoherence is the alleged inconsistency, the answer to your question becomes "everything"; and that's entirely by your own design.
Allow me to remind you of your argument:Again, nothing to do with coherence. I'm simply saying that the results are inconsistent depending on the location of the observations.Since when is 3000 = 2000? ???
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 11, 2015, 01:41:07 AM
You might have a point if I had brought up coherence. I didn'tI see. In that case I have to note that your posts do not carry any content whatsoever (as we've just eliminated the only possible avenue of reasoning you could have claimed), and I politely ask you to refrain from doing that in the upper fora.
Post by: Tau on March 11, 2015, 01:44:41 AM
Post by: markjo on March 11, 2015, 02:36:44 AM
It should also be noted the the refractive nature of the aetheric whirlpools will distort the light, potentially changing the apparent angle of the sun.Then how can you know for sure that your equation will produce accurate results if you don't know for sure that the angles to the sun are correct (or even meaningful)?
Post by: Jeliwan on March 13, 2015, 08:25:29 AM
but now, if the earth is flat, the messurement should give the same results for h, even if done on different places.
on the other hand, if the messurements give varying results for h when taken on different places, wouldn't that mean, that earth is round or at least curved?
if so, that is quite easy to check